p.1 

OAR Box 1787 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

6) ll-A-6 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 11/4/2008 10:22:18 AM Sheet 6 of 147 
P.2 

•<"t? •' -_v 

June 1986 

Prepared for : 

Dan de Roeck 

New Source Review Section 

Control Programs Development Division 

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711 

Prepared l?y : 

Radian Corporation 

P.O. Box 13000 

Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27709 

i-v-vy-

'• •V.-^i^-V**-''. 

.-.I. v-i-••"•:•• . *•• , 

* {•'•••rlhyri-.-j.*!. . 

V!?^ * :••••. • 

"X-5^r;;:v-

• Vf^V-;--*.*^-. 

:•*• •«I-..H^I.;I- 1- - . . . ' 

^•JH^"..TV.';'.'.' ' 

• .'•.*c£2S;i-,A'---' ' 

;

p.^«^ - :•'•"-'•:• 

• .••v.^-j...^-'.* 

• '•.-"•!?*jrAs5-.-f"-'- ' 

;p--^rt!f»*!j.>;-. —. 

• i-M-spj&sir* 

..•ft-jslEI?*;.'.;-

•••.^-l•.5VJksf\:'"-!-

. *Kj»BSf*.-!-

••.•'•'•'iv.'V*. ..i. • 

^•••ftirT**. 

.-1""-^^:. . •-.. 

•'f*?V^B^'6v-:-:- • 

• ',xii!^'.-,v...' 

•;$i»IS»HfrWi * • 

' . ' : " • ^ •:"•:•.•',•.. • 

-.;.-..;,-,tt«jii.v.\-i-

.p.*^Jv|*-*:^: • 

• , . , t ,• , 

RJ&DIM1 

CORPORATIO N 

I 
P.3 

y.V n 

DCN Nos. 86-203-024-59-13 

86-203-024-60-10 

86-203-024-90-02 

EPA Contract No. 68-02-3889 

THE 1985 NEW SOURCE REVIEW AUDIT: 

MAJOR FINDINGS 

DRAFT FINAL REPORT 

Prepared for: 

Dan de Roeck 

New Source Review Section 

Control Programs Development Division 

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 

Prepared by: 

Radian Corporation 

3200 East Chapel Hill Road/Progress Center 

Post Office Box 13000 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709 

June 1986 
P.4 

•, V 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table Page 

1 Permits in the 1985 NSR Data Base 4 | 

2 Public Notification Procedures 7 

3 Applicability Determinations 11 

4 BACT Determinations 15 

5 BACT Stri ngency Compared to NSPS 17 

6 LAER Stringency Compared to NSPS 19 

7 PSD Monitoring - Agencies for Which Preconstruction 

Monitoring was Required 20 

8 PSD Increment Analysis 22 

9 NAAQS Protection 25 

10 Emission Offset Requirements 29 

11 Permit Specificity and Clarity 31 
P.5 

n 

INTRODUCTION 

This report contains, in tabular form, the major findings of the New 

Source Review (NSR) Audit for FY 1985. The primary purpose of this report 

is to present the results of the national audit on an agency-by-agency basis 

so that individual agencies and EPA Regional Offices can see how each 

agency's results were factored into the national audit. This report should, 

therefore, be used in conjunction with the national report prepared by the 

EPA (National Air Audit System FY 1985 Report - EPA-450/2-85-009). 

The NSR Audit examined the ways that State and local agencies implement 

programs for the preconstruction review of new and modified stationary 

sources. Seven basic topics were examined: public notification procedures; 

applicability determinations; BACT/LAER determinations; ambient monitoring 

(PSD); ambient impact analyses; emission offset requirements; and permit 

specificity and clarity. 

The NSR audit considered information obtained from 64 Air Pollution 

Control Agencies: 48 States (not Hawaii or California), the District of 

Columbia, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, and 13 local government programs. 

Each audited agency was randomly assigned a number from 01 to 64 in order to 

prevent the reader from trying to compare one agency's performance against 

another. The reader should be cautioned against any effort to score or rank 

agencies in terms of their performance. Agencies receiving the same 

apparent rating may not be directly comparable, because the number of 

audited permits varies from agency to agency. 

Each audited agency is to be provided with its own code number, but not 

the code numbers of other agencies. Also, Regional Offices will have the 

code numbers of the agencies within their jurisdiction, but not of agencies 

in other regions. This report should be used by EPA Regional Offices and 

individual agencies to bring about improvements in the area of new source 

review. 

Most of the findings presented in Tables 1 through 11 were compiled 

from information contained within a computerized data base of the PSD/Part D 

and non-NSR/PSD permit file questionnaires that were completed by EPA 
P.6 

auditors. The data base contains 59 PSD permits; 13 NSR (Part D) permits; 

5 permits involving both PSD and Part D; and 360 non-NSR/PSD permits. These 

permits represent 56 percent of PSD permits, 31 percent of NSR (Part D) 

permits, and 2 percent of non-NSR/PSD permits processed during the audit 

period by the 64 audited agencies. 
P.7 

KEY 

Agency 

Performance 

Excellent 

i i 

Poor 

o 

Q 

* 

V 

• 

a 

! 

All permits complied 

Most permits complied 

Half of the permits 

complied i 

i 

Most permits did not 

comply 

None of the permits 

complied 

i 

Cannot be determined, 

lack of documentation 

in file 

NA Not available, question 

left blank 

Not applicable 
P.8 

TABLE 1. PERMITS IN THE 1985 NSR DATA BASE 

Number of Permits in Data Base 

State/Local PSD and Non-NSR 

Agency PSD Part D Part D PSD Total 

01 3 3 

02 2 3 5 

03 1 5 6 

04 4 4 

05 2 4 6 

06 1 1 3 5 

07 2 2 

08 1 11 12 

09 2 4 6 

10 6 6 

11 6 6 

12 3 3 

13 2 3 5 

14 1 1 6 8 

15 1 1 3 5 

16 3 5 25 33 

17 14 14 

18 2 3 5 

19 4 4 

20 3 5 8 

21 1 9 10 

22 1 7 8 
P.9 

TABLE 1. PERMITS IN THE 1985 NSR DATA BASE (Continued) 

i 

Number of Permits in Data Base !_ 

State/Local PSD and Non-NSR 

Agency PSD Part D Part D PSD Tot'al 

23 6 6 

24 4 9 . 13' 

25 1 6 TJ 

26 1 3 4 

i 

27 2 3 ! 5 

28 1 11 12 

29 1 * 1 

30 3 2 5 

i 

31 1 4 5 

32 3 3 

33 2 5 7 

34 3 If* 

35 1 1 4 'e 

i 

36 3 3 

i 

37 5 5 

38 1 3 [4 

39 5 |5 

40 5 |5 

i 

41 10 10 

42 6 ! 6 

i 

43 5 15 

* Information was not received in time to be included in the data base. 
TABLE 1. PERMITS IN THE 1985 NSR DATA BASE (Continued) 

P.10 

State/Local 

Agency 

Number of Permits in Data Base 

PSD Part D 

PSD and 

Part D 

1 

1 

1 

5 

Non-NSR 

PSD 

4 

10 

17 

10 

6 

5 

6 

4 

5 

5 

8 

8 

4 

3 

3 

9 

5 

1 

6 

6 

3 

360 

Tote 

4 

11 

19 

12 

6 

5 

6 

8 

5 

7 

8 

13 

6 

4 

5 

9 

5 

2 

6 

6 

5 

437 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 

50 

51 

52 

53 

54 

55 

56 

57 

58 

59 

60 

61 

62 

63 

64 

NATIONAL TOTAL 

2 

2 

4 

2 

1 

2 

2 

59 13 
P.11 

^B 

I Table 2. Public 

• State/Local 

• Agency 

1 01 

• 02 

• ^ 

04 

1 os 

1 * 

07 

" 08 

| 09 

1

 10 

11 

• 12 

1

 13 

•

 14 

15 

• 16 

i 

i 

Notification Procedures 

Major Permits 

(PSD and Part D) 

Public 

Notification 

_ 

O 

O 

— 

o 

o 

— 

o 

0 

— 

o 

— 

o 

9 

0 

Q 

Adequate 

Information 

^_ 

9 

O 

— 

9 

9 

— 

• 

O 

— 

o 

— 

o 

0 

9 

9 

7 

. 

i 

Minor Permits j 

Public3 

Notification 

• 

O 

• 

• 

• 

0 

9 

9 

• 

• 

O 

o 

o 

o 

• 

9 

I 

Adequate j 

Information 

i 

! 

'9 

i 

_ i 

i 

I 

9 > 

j 9 

\ i 

9 

i 

i 

— 

9 

t O 

9 

9 : 

i 

9 

' i 

n 

t 

r 

-
P.12 

Table 2. Public Notification Procedures 

State/Local 

Agency 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

Major Permits 

(PSD and Part D) 

Public 

Notification 

, 

O 

— 

o 

o 

o 

— 

o 

0 

o 

0 

• 

o 

o 

0 

Adequate 

Information 

___, 

0 

— 

9 

9 

9 

— 

9 

O 

O 

Vv 

— 

O 

9 

9 

Minor Permits 

Public3 

Notification 

0 

O 

O 

9 

• 

• 

• 

• 

O 

9 

• 

• 

O 

9 

9 

O 

Adequate 

Information 

9 

9 

9 

9 

— 

— 

— 

— 

9 

9 

— 

— 

NA 

9 

9 

9 
P.13 

r i •- t • , n 

Table 2. Public Notification Procedures 

State/Local 

Agency 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

Major Permits 

(PSD and Part D) 

Public 

Notification 

0 

0 

O 

— 

O 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

o 

9 

9 

Adequate 

Information 

0 

0 

9 

— 

— 

9 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

O 

9 

9 

• 

Minor Permits 

Public

 a 

Notification 

9 

• 

9 

O 

O 

9 

O 

O 

9 

• 

O 

• 

• 

• 

9 

9 

Adequate 

Information, 

0 | 

— , 

9 : 

9 : 

9 

9: 

j 

© i 

9 ; 

9

 j 

i 

— i 

9 ! 

i 

_ 

i 

. 

i 

t 

9 : 
P.14 

Table 2. Public Notification Procedures 

Major Permits 

(PSD and Part D) Minor Permits 

State/Local Public Adequate Public3 Adequate 

Agency Notification Information Notification Information 

49 

50 

51 

52 

53 

54 

55 

56 

57 

58 

59 

60 

61 

— 

O 

— 

o 

— 

0 

o 

o 

o 

— 

— 

o 

— 

9 

— 

o 

— 

9 

9 

O 

9 

— 

— 

9 

W 

9 

0 

o 

• 

9 

• 

• 

• 

• 

O 

• 

— 

0 

9 

9 

;— 

9 

— 

— 

— 

— 

9 

62 — — W ' — 

63 — — W — 

9 O 9 O 

a Many findings with blackened circles are those from agencies with SIP approved rules that do 

not contain a public notification requirement for minor source permits. 

10 
P.15 

Table 3. Applicability Determinations 

State/Local 

Agency 

01 

02 

03 

04 

05 

06 

07 

08 

09 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

Were Non-NSR/PSD 

Files Correctly 

Reviewed as 

Minor Sources ? 

9 

O 

9 

O 

O 

9 

O 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

O 

O 

O 

O 

9 

Were All 

Pollutant -

Emitting 

Activities 

Addressed ? 

9 

O 

O 

O 

O 

O 

O 

O 

9 

O 

O 

O 

O 

O 

O 

O 

9 

"Potential to 

Emit" Defined 

Correctly3 

O 

O 

• 

O 

o 

• 

0 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

o 

• 

o 

• 

• 

I 

Emission 

Netting 

Problems 

i 

-

• 

• 

! 

? 

f -1 

I I 

11 
P.16 

Table 3. Applicability Determinations 

State/Local 

Agency 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

Were Non-NSR/PSD 

Files Correctly 

Reviewed as 

Minor Sources ? 

0 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

O 

O 

9 

O 

O 

— 

9 

9 

O 

O 

• 

Were All 

Pollutant -

Emitting 

Activities 

Addressed ? 

O 

0 

0 

9 

O 

O 

O 

O 

0 

O 

O 

— 

O 

9 

0 

o 

o 

"Potential to 

Emit" Defined 

Correctly3 

0 

• 

O 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

m 

• 

— 

• 

o 

0 

• 

• 

Emission 

Netting 

Problems 

• 

• 

? 

? 

12 
CO 

c 

o 

+-» 

0} 

c 

E 

<D 

•*»- » 

Q 

£_. 

OJ 

O 

"5. 

Q . 

< 

CO 

JQ 

OJ 

XI 

c co 

o |? E 

co — © 

•2 * 2 E f 2 

UJ *^ Q_ 

O "gco 

~ c >» 

CO it . •*-* 

c o g 

| | 3 

- UJ 

= •- o> 2 "2 

;"• co — 3= co I I I 

Q 

JP >. «* 

w g -o H 

Z fc $ 3 

2 8 1 O 

© = GC £ r

 s 

CO 

CJ > . 

q o 

_i c 

CO < 

tf) 

e^- oo o • o o • o o o o 

oooooooooooooooo o 

0009000000000000 0 

«.8-fe- 8 8S-»9IS?-|!S*53«8 E 
P.18 

Table 3. Applicability Determinations 

State/Local 

Agency 

52 

53 

54 

55 

56 

57 

58 

59 

60 

61 

62 

63 

64 

TOTAL NUMBER 

OF PERMIT FILES 

Were Non-NSR/PSD 

Files Correctly 

Reviewed as 

Minor Sources ? 

9 

O 

9 

9 

O 

O 

0 

O 

O 

O 

0 

9 

O 

56 

Were All 

Pollutant -

Emitting 

Activities 

Addressed ? 

9 

O 

9 

9 

O 

O 

0 

O 

O 

O 

9 

9 

O 

20 

"Potential to 

Emit" Defined 

Correctly3 

• 

O 

• 

0 

o 

0 

0 

• 

o 

• 

9 

• 

o 

Emission 

Netting 

Problems 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

? 

3

 Blackened circles were assigned to agencies that had permit files which EPA 

considered to be deficient in some respect concerning the calculation or use of 

potential emissions for source applicability purposes. 

Blackened circles were assigned to agencies who did not require the proper 

"netting" procedures to be followed to calculate the changes in emissions at a 

modified source. 

14 
P.19 

• State/Local 

Agencies 

02 

• 03 

I 05 

• 06 

08 

• 09 

1 

•

 13 

14 

• 16 

1

 18 

• ^ 

22 

I 24 

1

 25 

26 

27 

Table 4. 

BACT Applied to 

Each Regulated 

Pollutant 

0 

• 

O 

O 

0 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

9 

o 

o 

o 

— 

o 

o 

BACT Determinations 

Alternative 

Controls 

Considered 

9 

O 

• 

• 

o 

9 

• 

9 

O 

9 

9 

O 

• 

o 

o 

o 

9 

15 

Analyzed Impacts 

of Alternatives 

• 

NA 

— 

NA 

NA 

9 

— 

• 

O 

• 

• 

o 

— 

9 

O 

o 

NA 

1 ' 

i f i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

Agency Verifies 

Applicant's BACT 

i 

• ; 

o | 

O ! 

O ! 

O ! 

9 : 

• ! 

o i 

o ! 

9 i 

O ! 

O i" 

O ! 

1 

o 

1 

O : 

1 1 

NA 

O ! 

i 

i 

: I 

1 
P.20 

Table 4. BACT Determinations 

State/Local 

Agencies 

30 

33 

34 

35 

45 

46 

47 

51 

53 

55 

56 

57 

58 

64 

BACT Applied to 

Each Regulated 

Pollutant 

O 

O 

0 

• 

O 

o 

• 

o 

o 

9 

o 

o 

o 

o 

Alternative 

Controls 

Considered 

9 

0 

O 

O 

O 

0 

9 

0 

O 

9 

9 

O 

O 

o 

Analyzed Impacts 

of Alternatives 

0 

O 

0 

• 

O 

0 

0 

9 

• 

0 

• 

o 

o 

9 

Agency Verifies 

Applicant's BACT 

9 

0 

O 

O 

O 

O 

O 

• 

9 

9 

• 

• 

• 

9 

16 
TABLE 5. BACT STRINGENCY COMPARED TO NSPS 

State/Local 

Agency 

BACT Equals NSPS for All 

Pollutant Determinations 

Mixture of Pollutant 

Determinations Where Bact 

Equals NSPS, and BACT is 

More Stringent than NSPS 

BACT is More Stringent 

Than NSPS for All 

Pollutant Determinations 

02 

03 

05 

08 

09 

13 

14 

16 

18 

20 

25 

30 

33 

34 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 
TABLE 5. BACT STRINGENCY COMPARED TO NSPS (Continued) 

State/Local 

Agency 

BACT Equals NSPS for All 

Pollutant Determinations 

Mixture of Pollutant 

Determinations Where Bact 

Equals NSPS, and BACT 1s 

More Stringent than NSPS 

BACT 1s More Stringent 

Than NSPS for All 

Pollutant Determinations 

on 

35 

45 

46 

47 

51 

53 

55 

56 

58 

64 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

*• 

•o 
TABLE 6. LAER STRINGENCY COMPARED TO NSPS 

State/Local 

Agency 

Number of Pollutant Determinations 

LAER LAER is More 

Equals NSPS Stringent Than NSPS 

Number of 

Permits 

06 

08 

14 

15 

16 

21 

51 

TOTAL 

_2_ 

5 

1 

1 

1 

2 

_L 

6 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

_ 2_ 

9 

19 
Table 7. PSD Monitoring -

Agencies For Which Preconstruction Monitoring Was Required 

t\*> 

O 

State Agency 

02 

06 

08 

11 

13 

16 

18 

20 

24 

30 

33 

34 

Number of 

Permits 

2 

3 

3 

2 

1 

2 

Source 

Monitoring Required 

Representative 

Data Used 

(Number of Permits) (Number of Permits) 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1 

1 

0 

1 

1 

1 

? 

1 

1 

1 

1 

3 

3 

1 

1 

1 

Permits Using Representative Data 

Was Basis 

for Use 

in Permit File ? 

O 

O 

? 

O 

O 

• 

O 

o 

9 

O 

• 

o 

Does the Application 

Meet all Criteria for 

Represenative Data ? 

O 

O 

? 

O 

O 

? 

O 

9 

• 

O 

• 

0 
Agencies 

State Agency 

35 

46 

47 

£ 51 

53 

55 

56 

57 

TOTAL 

- - - - -- -

Table 7. PSD Monitoring — 

*• 

> For Which Preconstruction Monitoring Was Required 

Source Representative 

Number of Monitoring Required Data Used 

Permits (Number of Permits) (Number of Permits) 

1 0 

2 0 

2 0 

1 0 

1 0 

5 0 

2 0 

1 0 

34 4 

-

1 

2 

2 

1 

1 

5 

2 

1 

30 

- -

Permits Using Representative Data 

Was Basis 

for Use 

in Permit File ? 

• 

O 

O 

o 

o 

9 

o 

o 

-

Does the Application 

Meet all Criteria for 

Represenative Data ? 

? 

O 

O 

• 

O 

9 

9 

O 

* 

... . . —~, 
Table 8. PSD Increment Analysis 

Number of Permits 

State/Local Where an Increment 

Problems In Determining Increment Consumption 

TSP Emissions SO, Emissions 

Agency Analysis was Performed Major Sources Minor Sources Major Sources Minor Sources 

r-o 

ro 

02 

03 

05 

06 

08 

09 

11 

13 

14 

15 

16 

18 

20 

2 

3 
Table 8. PSD Increment Analysis 

Number of Permits Problems In Determining Increment Consumption 

State/Local Where an Increment TSP Emissions SO, Emissions 

Agency Analysis was Performed Major Sources Minor Sources Major Sources Minor Sources 

ro 

0*> 

22 

24 

25 

30 

33 

34 

35 

45 

46 

47 

51 

53 

55 

1 

3 

1 

3 

2 

3 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

1 

3 
Table 8. PSD Increment Analysis 

Number of Permits Problems in Determining Increment Consumption 

State/Local Where an Increment TSP Emissions SO, Emissions 

Agency Analysis was Performed Major Sources Minor Sources Major Sources Minor Sources 

56 

57 

64 

1 

1 

2 

Total 46 

ro 

-j***-
'< . .* ' , 

Table 9. NAAQS Protection 

State/Local 

Agency 

01 

02 

03 

04 

05 

06 

07 

08 

09 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

NAAQS Analyses 

for NSR/PSD Permits 

Done Correctly 

_ 

o 

• 

— 

o 

o 

— 

o 

o 

— 

• 

.— 

o 

o 

— 

o 

„ ^ 

Required NAAQS 

Analysis Done for 

Non-NSR/PSD Permits3 

O 

O 

• 

— 

O 

9 

O 

— 

— 

9 

• 

9 

O 

O 

— 

o 

_ 

NAAQS Analysis '' 

for All Permits 

Protected Against

 ! 

the Development 

of "Hot Spots"6 i 

: I 

? 

* I 

o : 

o : 

i 

O ; 

9 ! 

o : 

I 

I 

9 ! 

? ' ' 

o 

0 i 

o 

o i 

i 

I 

i 

I 

? i 

I 

j 

25 
P.30 

, • *• . V 

Table 9. NAAQS Protection 

State/Local 

Agency 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

NAAQS Analyses 

for NSR/PSD Permits 

Done Correctly 

O 

— 

9 

0 

O 

— 

O 

o 

o 

o 

— 

0 

— 

— 

o 

o 

o 

Required NAAQS 

Analysis Done for 

Non-NSR/PSD Permits3 

O 

O 

9 

9 

9 

0 

— 

9 

0 

— 

0 

— 

o 

— 

o 

— ' • 

NAAQS Analysis 

for All Permits 

Protected Against 

the Development 

of "Hot Spots"b 

• 

? 

O 

? 

o 

? 

o 

o 

? 

o 

? 

9 

9 

— 

9 

O 

O 

26 
P.31 

* t •• 

Table 9. NAAQS Protection 

State/Local 

Agency 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 

50 

51 

52 

NAAQS Analyses 

for NSR/PSD Permits 

Done Correctly 

^ 

0 

— 

— 

— '.-. 

— 

— 

— 

o 

o 

o 

— 

— 

— 

9 

__» 

Required NAAQS 

Analysis Done for 

Non-NSR/PSD Permits3 

^_ 

• 

9 

9 

o 

9 

— 

O 

— 

o 

o 

o 

o 

— 

9 

o 

9 

NAAQS Analysis 

for All Permits 

Protected Against 

the Development 

of "Hot Spots"b 

—_ 

NA 

• 

• 

• 

• 

— ' 

O 

— 

o 

9 

? 

O 

- r-

? j 

o ; 

? 

i 

I 

i 

i 

!' ' ' 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

1 

27 
P.32 

53 

Table 9. NAAQS Protection 

State/Local 

Agency 

NAAQS Analyses 

for NSR/PSD Permits 

Done Correctly 

Required NAAQS 

Analysis Done for 

Non-NSR/PSD Permits3 

NAAQS Analysis 

for All Permits 

Protected Against 

the Development 

of "Hot Spots"b 

o o 

54 

55 

56 

57 

58 

59 

60 

61 

62 

63 

64 

— 

o 

0 

o 

0 

— 

— 

. — 

— 

— 

o 

9 

O 

O 

o 

o 

9 

O 

NA 

n 

The shaded areas include permits where the NAAQS analysis was incomplete (i.e., pollutants not considered). 

The shaded areas indicate that significant emissions from other sources in the vicinity were ignored. 

28 
Table 10. Emission Offset Requirements 

ro 

to 

State/Local 

Agency 

06 

14 

15 

16 

213 

28 

31 

35 

38 

Number of 

Permits 

1 

1 

2 

5 

1 

I 

1 

I 

1 

Pollutants 

HC 

TSP, HC 

HC, TSP 

HC 

NOx, CO, HC 

HC 

HC 

SO, 

TSP, S02, NOx, 

CO.HC 

Offsets are 

Federally 

Enforceable 

? 

O 

O 

O 

— 

O 

o 

o 

o 

Offsets are Expressed Minor/Area 

In Same Terms Source Growth 

as RFP Demonstration Taken Into Account 

? 

O 

O 

O 

— 

? 

O 

9 

o 

? 

o 

? 

9 

— 

? 

o 

? 

? 

L 
OJ 

o 

State/Local 

Agency 

45' 

51 

55° 

61 

a 

Iable 10. Emission Offset Requirements 

Nunberof 

Pemlts Pollutants 

Offsets are Cutsets are Expressed Mi nor/Area 

Federally ;| in Same Terms Source Growth 

Enforceable m RFP Demonstration Taken Into Account 

* 

TSP, HC 

CO.HC 

CO 

HC 

i

!

 * 

o 

o o 

Permit denied. 

State regulations allow postponement of offsets for resource recovery facilities, if offsets are 

not readily available. 

'Emission offsets not applied, but should have been. File was not available for review. 
- Table 11 

State/Local 

• Agency 

1

 01 

— 03 

06 

I 08 

I 09 

•

 10 

12 

I 13 

• 15 

17 

19 

| 23 

• 24 

25 

B

 26 

1 28 

• 29 

i 

. Permit Specifity and Clarity3 

i 

Source's 

Allowable 

Emissions 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

Stated or Referenced in Permit 

Each Emission 

Unit and Allowable 

Emission Limit 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

31 

: 

i i 

i 

Compliance ' 

Test Methods 

: ' 1 

• ; 

i 

i i 

i 1 

9 ' 

i 

i i 

• ; 

1 

9 ! 

9 : 

9 

9 

i 

i 

1

 i 

• j 

' i 

9 j 

i1 i 1 

• : 

i i. 

P.35 

c ' 

-

1 
P.36 

' v» 'T* +. 

Table 11. Permit Specifity and Clarity' 

State/Local 

Agency 

30 

33 

38 

40 

43 

45 

46 

51 

52 

58 

60 

TOTAL AGENCIES 

Source's 

Allowable 

Emissions 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

15 

Stated or Referenced in Permit 

Each Emission 

Unit and Allowable 

Emission Limit 

9 

9 

9 

9 

• 

• 

15 

Compliance 

Test Methods 

9 

• 

9 

Q 

20 

a

 The state and local agencies included in this table were those for whom the Region's indicated 

in the executive summary narratives that were problems with permit specifity and clarity. 

32